Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~125
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~24
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-08: ~262

Other:

• Duplicates: ~349
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~36
• Other speedy deletions: ~170
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~12
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~6
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Yepthatwork

• Yepthatwork (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Likely another Kiananjomani sock. Recreates File:British Airways Boeing 747-236B G-BDXH London - Heathrow England, United Kingdom 14 March 1981.jpg, previously uploaded by sockpuppet Unfortunately I'm lonely at work. Also recreates File:Pan Am Boeing 747-100; N736PA@LHR, April 1972.jpg, also created by Unfortunately I'm lonely at work. The user's third upload, File:Egyptair airbus a320 232 SU-GCC Istanbul Ataturk Yesilkoy Int'l Airport - LTBA, Turkey.jpg, AFAICT has no connection to a previously deleted file however I find it weird that the user added VRT permission themself. Jonteemil (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Stratovarius22

• Stratovarius22 (talk · contribs)

Account created for sabotage a Wikimedia's Argentina contest, no sense deletion request create in all the campaign --Ezarateesteban 21:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Disagree I don't see it as sabotage. I think their balance between COM:TOO and COM:PACKAGE is a bit skewed too far towards the later, but they are pointing out a legitimate issue and at least some of their nominations are correct. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Account created in 2013 and used on es.wiki, it was not created to sabotage any campaign. This user's complaint comes after being notified of the opening of a deletion request for a photo he uploaded. Open requests are well-founded and not arbitrary. While opinions about their relevance or lack thereof can vary, and dissent is welcome, the approach used by Ezarate does not seem to presume good faith. --Stratovarius22 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

user:Vitorperrut555

User is going around nominating in-use (or at the very least unproblematic) files for deletion seemingly to make a point after a bunch of their MS paint doodles and other random useless files were nominated for deletion. (See: 1 2 3 4 5) Dronebogus (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus WTF? Are you kidding me? Seriously? You accuse me of 'going around nominating files for deletion'? Let me get this straight: I point out files that literally make zero sense on an educational media repository and suddenly I'm the problem?

My MS Paint scribbles? Useless files? Compared to what, exactly? Blurred screenshots of your breakfast? Random cat gifs? I should sit quietly while my Information Society drawings are deleted for being 'out of scope', but somehow your random meaningless files are magically good? Vitor Hello? 03:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

w:wp:othercrap is not an argument. Even if it was you have no right to be going around nominating COM:INUSE files for deletion. In any case your MS paint drawings are poor even by the standards of the medium and have zero educational use. A lot of them seem to be vanity uploads for your personal pages, which are tolerated for productive users. You are pushing the limits of both toleration and productivity. Dronebogus (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus

You think my arts sucks?

“Wow. Just… wow. Let me unpack this:

1. My reference to wp:othercrap is ‘not an argument’? That’s adorable. I’m literally pointing out inconsistent enforcement of policy, but sure, apparently reasoning is optional.

2. ‘You have no right to nominate COM:INUSE files for deletion’? Oh, I see. So anyone can upload nonsense and it’s immune to review, but if I dare point out obvious out-of-scope content, suddenly I’m the villain. Brilliant. Truly democratic.

3. ‘Your MS Paint drawings are poor even by the standards of the medium and have zero educational use’? Are we seriously judging MS Paint doodles with the same rigor we apply to centuries-old manuscripts now? This is ridiculous.

4. ‘Vanity uploads tolerated for productive users’? Let me get this straight: my productivity is apparently irrelevant if my uploads don’t align with… what, exactly? Aesthetic taste? Subjective whim?

Congratulations 🥳 , you’ve officially created a bureaucracy so absurd that even Windows ME would be jealous.

I suggest either enforce your rules consistently or admit that your moderation is entirely arbitrary. Until then, count me in as someone who will continue to highlight blatant contradictions—MS Paint skills or not. Vitor Hello? 04:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555: if a file is use on any WMF project that is sufficient for it to be in scope. Of course, you can nominate these or other in-scope files for deletion if they are copyright violations or other legally problematic content for us to host. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Hi, I added 2 warnings to Vitor, and deleted some out of scope files. Yann (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Vitor was indefinitely blocked from the Portuguese Wikipedia for similar behavior. However, this topic appears to be a special exchange of barbs between the two users, as Vitor has opened several DRs regarding Dronebogus personal drawings, which I agree some are out of scope, btw. Also, Vitor has some out of scope drawings here, which, after Yann's warnings, I believe he'll understand better the project scope. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 16:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with that characterization of my uploads, but I wouldn’t mind the nominations if Vitor hadn’t nominated them after I nominated his files with an identical rationale. Would Vitor even have noticed or cared about my upload history if I hadn’t done so? You can be completely “right” in terms of process, but still be in the wrong because of the context you perform the action in. Dronebogus (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Rafe87

Rafe87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

After having been told in no uncertain terms that File:Still from Israeli government ad.jpg was a copyvio, Rafe87 uploaded File:Captura de tela 2025-08-16 132842.png, the same image plus a caption. I see only three possibilities here: (1) the files are not copyvios, though certainly if this is the case it is not on the basis of either rationale that Rafe87 put forward in that linked discussion; (2) the second upload is a deliberate upload of a copyvio; and/or (3) Rafe87 lacks the level of understanding of copyright called for by CIR ("competence is required"). These are not, of course, mutually exclusive, and the first of the three would surprise me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In light of the fact that I can't see the files, I'm inclined to lean towards a CIR block, but keeping TPA. Indefinite doesn't always mean infinite. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Image is figure 3 of this article, on page 11. I think the background is way to complex for it to be below TOO, which is the only basis on which I could imagine accepting it without a license. - Jmabel ! talk 06:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: I agree with Jmabel on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.@Jmabel, I'm going to put it above ToO in country of origin. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I endorse this report, and at the same time would encourage admins to review 1) Rafe87's claims about copyright and 2) their accusations of censorship and other malfeasance, each in the linked discussion.

en:User talk:Rafe87#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction may also be relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

For the context, please see the Help Desk. Yann (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That is the discussion linked to in the opening sentence of the report. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I added the link to the whole discussion, which includes accusations by Rafe87 of censorship. Yann (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Rafe87 for a week for reuploading copyright violations. Feel free to block longer for unfounded accusations. Yann (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's comments on the Help Desk are both rude and show incompetence. But IMO if that Help Desk section is all there is then they don't rise to the level of disruption where a block should be used. The comments are strictly on topic about Commons policy and administrator actions and copyright, all of which are appropriate to discuss there, and we should allow such criticism of administrative actions. It is better if users are allowed to criticize administrative actions, people who read the criticism will see for themselves how stupid it is, than to give the impression that we are suppressing criticism of administrative actions with blocks. The block is appropriate for reuploading copyrighted contents of course. – b_jonas 07:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Turkish Patriot1974

• Turkish Patriot1974 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads copyvio File:Flag of the Ministry of Defense (Turkiye).jpg as File:Millî Savunma Bakanlığı forsu (Türkiye).jpg after final warning just a mere hour prior. Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Yann (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Andres 6788899

• Andres 6788899 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Continues to upload out of scope files despite being warned. Jonteemil (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Shams948

• Shams948 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This is the fourth time this user has continued with disruptive behavior related to categorization. You can see my first and second report. After the last one, the administrator Taivo blocked him for a week. After being blocked or warned, he usually temporarily stops his malicious activities, and then resumes them after a few months, like in recent days. This morning again I warned him to stop, but he replies with threatening me and with repeating conspiracy theories that I'm a part of some cyber army. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Could you please give a diff of recent "disruptive behavior" about categories? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: There are tons of examples: placing categories from Lahijan within Hamadan, even though the two cities are 400 km apart [1], playing like adding already existing categories [2], opening duplicates like Monuments in Hamadan, Mountain Alvand, Foods from Iran and Foods in Iran, and then placing numerous images [3] and categories [4] into it. Furthermore, persistently opening agricultural categories named after the city of Bahar, even though it was explained to him repeatedly not to do so because the photos are actually from Bahar County. This morning, it took me several hundreds of edits to fix all of his mess. --Orijentolog (talk)

Also, putting the same photos or categories under two different cities [5], removing existing correct categories and replacing them with nonsense, opening categories with illiterate names, changing the unified categorization used in hundreds of other cities [6], brutal overcategorization [7], etc. He targeted some categories three times over periods of several months [8], never listens to complaints and just repeats the same thing. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

PayamAvarwand

• PayamAvarwand (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has uploaded some seemingly-legitimate own work (e.g. File:Ahvaz-Sunset.jpg) but also many copyright violations (see their talk page). Despite a final warning on 18 July 2025 and a follow-up conversation on my talk page after which they seemed to understand our licensing policy, they have continued to upload photos with inadequate proof (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:New-Site-Ahvaz.jpg). Consigned (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. Lets hope the time out helps Gbawden (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

LeaFGJU

• LeaFGJU (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Keeps uploading files of unclear origin or copyright violations, tagging them as own work. Files have repeatedly been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LeaFGJU) and the user has been warned numerous times on the talk page. It seems that they do not understand what they are doing wrong (User_talk:LeaFGJU#Copyright_violations), so maybe a French speaker can explain it to them. However, their most recent uploads are already copyright violations again. I suggest deleting all uploads and blocking them with talk page access allowed to maybe have a conversation and have them understand what they can and cannot upload. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, some files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of administrator actions by User:GPSLeo

Hello,

I would like to raise concerns regarding the repeated deletion actions of administrator @GPSLeo.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Lack of policy-based reasoning

• The administrator deleted Category:AI Image of Ahmed al-Sharaa and its contents with the justification of “AI-generated and not in use.”
• However, as noted in my [request], per COM:AI and COM:SCOPE, neither of these reasons is a valid deletion criterion.

2. Failure to allow community discussion

• The deletion was executed without a sufficiently broad discussion, with no chance for wider community input from both supporters and opposers.
• Per COM:DEL, disputed deletions — especially whole categories — should go through community discussion (e.g., at Commons:Deletion requests), not be handled unilaterally.

3. Subjective reasoning (“ugly” file claim)

• In another case, User:GPSLeo requested deletion of a different AI-generated file I uploaded solely on the grounds that he personally considered it “ugly.”
• This reasoning is **not supported anywhere in Commons policies**. File quality or “beauty” is not a deletion criterion.

4. Perceived targeting

• The pattern of deletions and subjective reasoning gives the impression of unfair treatment and personal bias against my contributions. This undermines the assumption of good faith and the principle of equal treatment of contributors.

My request

I kindly ask for:

• A review of the deletions made by User:GPSLeo to ensure they were compliant with Commons policies.
• Confirmation that AI-generated/enhanced files, when disclosed and licensed correctly, should not be deleted for purely subjective reasons.
• Guidance to prevent unilateral or subjective deletion actions in the future without community discussion.

Thank you for your attention. Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Masry1973: I would take this much more seriously if the UDR had been successful. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The remark about "ugly" was not in his capacity as an admin, and it was supplemental to a policy-based reason. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I would guess that well over 90% of AI-dependent contributions to Commons are deleted. There is a strong consensus against most uses of AI here, though that is short of unanimity. Unless you are also having a large number of non-AI-dependent images also deleted, it is very unlikely that you are being targeted. And if an administrator such as GPSLeo has seen what looks to him like a pattern of bad uploads by you, it is entirely appropriate that he continue to look at your uploads to see if the pattern continues. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I will leave this open to give others a chance to comment, but my own inclination would be to close this as "not done", and unless someone else besides Masry1973 sees this very differently than I do, I would hope it will be closed within 24 hours. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jmabel, for your comments. I would like to respond point by point, with reference to Commons policies:

On the UDR not being successful

Whether or not an undeletion request was accepted does not automatically validate the original deletion. Per COM:UNDELETE, the purpose of UDRs is to re-examine deletions, but consensus and outcomes can vary depending on participation and timing. The fact that one request was not granted does not close the door to legitimate concerns about administrative actions.

On the “ugly” remark

I understand your point that it was “supplemental.” However, it is concerning when an administrator introduces personal aesthetic judgment into a deletion discussion, regardless of whether it was the decisive factor. Per Commons deletion policy, deletions must be based on policy grounds, not personal taste. Even supplemental remarks by administrators carry weight, so it is important to keep discussions strictly policy-focused.

On consensus about AI-generated content

Indeed, I acknowledge there is broad debate about AI on Commons. However, as of now, COM:AI permits the uploading of AI-generated or AI-enhanced files under certain conditions (proper disclosure, licensing, and compliance with scope). Unless the community reaches a formal consensus to prohibit all such files, individual administrators should not impose de facto bans based on personal interpretation.

Also, per COM:SCOPE, unused files are not automatically out of scope. Many free files remain on Commons precisely to allow future use.

On claims of “pattern”

While I appreciate the vigilance of administrators, this must not cross into the appearance of preemptive targeting. Per :COM:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to act with neutrality and avoid the impression of bias against particular contributors.

My concern is not scrutiny of my uploads, but rather whether scrutiny is being applied in a consistent, policy-based manner across Commons, not disproportionately toward certain contributors.

Conclusion

My goal here is not to escalate conflict but to ensure clarity:

AI files, when disclosed and properly licensed, are currently permitted.

Deletions should remain firmly policy-based, without subjective reasoning.

Administrators should apply consistent standards for all contributors.

I trust the community will evaluate these points fairly Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

These were proper admin actions. AI-modified junk does not belong on Commons, especially modified images of people. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535, I am concerned that this file was deleted by you (UDR here) while a community discussion on the same issue was still ongoing, which is not consistent with COM:DEL where proper consensus is expected. The rationale cited (“journalistic standards” and “ugly”) is not policy-based, but subjective. Per COM:SCOPE and COM:FR, minor retouching for clarity is acceptable. Deleting the file under these circumstances appears premature and unfair. Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The DR had been open since the 5th. If we had enough admins on this project, the file would have been deleted on the 12th or 13th. You are attempting to bludgeon the process with way too much prose, bold text, and quoting rules, but it's not going to work. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, why didn't you try Commons:Undeletion requests? Msb (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mosbatho Done here Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The images went through regular DR, so it did have a “chance for wider community discussion”. Also, file quality is considered a deletion criterion, see Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality, low-quality files can be deleted if realistically there aren’t any educational use for them and there are higher-quality alternatives available. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Lots of noise, little to no substance. Jmabel hit the nail on the head very early on in this discussion, and the problem here is not GPSLeo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

• هزاع الحويطي (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• شهم السهم العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• شهم الشهم العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• الظبع العمري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All sockpuppets of دامر العمري, reuploading deleted files uploaded by other socks. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Timestamp	File	Uploader	Deleted file	Uploader
Aug 19 2025 02:08 AM	File:عشائر عرب العمري تصدر بيان هام لعشائر اربد.jpg	هزاع الحويطي (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 8 edits)	File:عشائر عرب العمري تصدر بيان عن مقتل ابنها.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 19 2025 02:08 AM	File:عشائر عرب العمري.jpg	هزاع الحويطي (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 8 edits)	File:عشائر عرب العمري عشائر العمريه عشائر العمري قبيلة العمريه 9.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 19 2025 02:01 AM	File:عطوة عشائر العمري وعشائر العجارمه.jpg	شهم السهم العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits)	File:عطوة عشائر العمري والعجارمه.jpg (Und | Log)	سبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 19 2025 02:01 AM	File:عطوة عشائر العمري وعشائر العجارمه.jpg	شهم السهم العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits)	File:عشائر عرب العمري عشائر العمريه عشائر العمري قبيلة العمريه 88.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 19 2025 01:55 AM	File:جلالة الملك وولي عهده الأمين في مضارب عشائر العمري في اربد.jpg	شهم السهم العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits)	File:جلالة الملك وولي العهد في مضارب عشائر عرب العمري.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 19 2025 01:47 AM	File:الحاج محمد مرشد ابو اسامه العمري يولم لابناء حي العمري في محافظة الزرقاء.jpg	شهم الشهم العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 6 edits)	File:العقيد محمد مرشد ابو اسامه العمري صاحب سوق الحسبه في حي العمري الزرقاء.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 18 2025 11:01 PM	File:الامير سالم المصلح الصوالحه العمري مع فرسة اللؤلؤي يوم الجندلية الرمثا اربد.jpg	الظبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 10 edits)	File:فرسان من عشائر عرب العمري يوم الجندلية على ارض الرمثا - اربد عام ١٩٢١ ميلادي.jpg (Und | Log)	سبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 18 2025 10:50 PM	File:بيرق قبيلة العمريه.jpg	الظبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 10 edits)	File:بيرق عرب العمريه.jpg (Und | Log)	ذيبان العراقبه (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 18 2025 10:50 PM	File:بيرق قبيلة العمريه.jpg	الظبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 10 edits)	File:بيرق عرب العمري من قماش احمر.jpg (Und | Log)	شلاش العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)
Aug 18 2025 10:50 PM	File:بيرق قبيلة العمريه.jpg	الظبع العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks | 10 edits)	File:بيرق عرب العمري لون احمر قماش.jpg (Und | Log)	دامر العمري (talk | contr | dcontr | accounts | blocks)(different)

Jonteemil (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. All indefinitely blocked and tagged by Squirrel and their uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

伊藤文四郎

• 伊藤文四郎 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads File:旧赤穂村役場（現駒ヶ根市郷土館）.jpg a third time, this time as File:現駒ヶ根市郷土館.jpg, after final warning two days ago by Yann. Jonteemil (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Iamsaifsarkar

• Iamsaifsarkar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Promo-only account. Already blocked on enwiki. Jonteemil (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Наталія Прадун2

• Наталія Прадун2 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Reuploads copyvio File:Презентація книги авторкою.jpg as File:Олена Бондаренко.jpg after final warning by Yann nine days ago. Jonteemil (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Lymantria. Yann (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Namihka

• Namihka (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Is it ok to just create blank categories? I believe all these new pages should be deleted (except the ones that somebody else has already developed). Gikü (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days, all new categories deleted. Yann (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit too harsh for a first time offender who only joined 6 hours ago and even responded to Gikü's message on their talk page? They might have created the categories in good faith just not knowing the policies and procedures here. Or were the categories crystal clear vandalism? Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused what happened here, though creating several dozen blank category pages is certainly a problem (hides the fact that the category doesn't really exist). Still, it looks to me like, for example, Category:Villa F. Lechien (1976), when deleted, was a reasonable category, largely built up by Abxbay. Similarly for Category:Players of Gimnástica de Torrelavega, built up by Herodotptlomeu. I haven't checked too many more, but Yann, I think you should review these deletions (they look like a mixed bag), and probably unblock the user. None of these blank categories came after they were warned by Gikü. They had been creating them up until minutes before the warning, and four hours had elapsed between the warning and the block. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. A few hours would have been enough anyway. Yann (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: will you be reviewing the deletions? - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

In order to evit another block of my user, I left to you review the deletions. Thank you. Namihka (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Namihka: I don't follow that. I assume by "evit" you mean avoid (like evitar in Spanish), but who is "my user" (your account?) and who do you mean by "you" in "I left to you review the deletions"? That came under my comment, are you expecting me to do the review? Seems to me that should be Yann's task, not mine, I'm not the person who did a bunch of deletions without review. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Please undelete Category:Moldova photographs taken on 2025-08-10; Namihka's edit was not the last one, I improved it after (I think?). There may be other categories in the same situation. Gikü (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Namihka (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I undeleted some categories yesterday, which were deleted again by The Squirrel Conspiracy, who also blocked this account for socking. Yann (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: can you explain why you deleted Category:Villa F. Lechien (1976)? As I remarked above, seemed like a perfectly valid category, largely built up by Abxbay. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion. I used Special:Nuke on the three GMatteotti socks. Happy to restore this. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

So far, I have looked at 11 of these, and found six apparently perfectly good categories (having both parent categories and content). I'll go through the rest, but Pinging @Yann, The Squirrel Conspiracy, when doing mass deletions like this, please at least look at a reasonable sample of the pages in question. Given how many of these I'm finding that are fine, I'm pretty sure neither of you did that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've now been through the rest of the categories. Apparently I hit more "good" ones at first than typical, but the end count for the 57 categories that were in a deleted state when I started was 21 "good" categories, 36 "bad" ones, so I stand by my earlier point. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cannot upload photo

I tried to upload file Aeshna viridis f1 from W. Commons to my paper "Фітохорія" in Wiki ua, but failed. Please help me. В. Николов (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to "upload" it, you just need to "add" it by typing [[File:Aeshna viridis f1.JPG|thumb|Your description]] when you use the Source Editor. @В. Николов. Nakonana (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@В. Николов nevermind, I fixed it for you. The problem was that you wrote ".jpg" in lower case letters instead of ".JPG" which would have been the correct file name ending in this case. Nakonana (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A lot of thanks! I became more clever than yesterday В. Николов (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here with any user's conduct; @В. Николов: things like this belong at COM:Help desk, not on this page which is for reporting conduct problems.

Anyway, Already done. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

BaldiGaming99yeah

BaldiGaming99yeah (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user has repeatedly uploaded multiple copyright violations, even after a final warning. User:Yann gave them a final warning four days ago for uploading copyvios, and the user uploaded another one afterwards. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

About User:Caterpillar84, possible infringements on copyrights through derivatives

Hello,

I happened to encounter an upload from Caterpillar84 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user in the recent files. As I deemed it potentially problematic, I reviewed their other uploads. Some results are seen under Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Caterpillar84 and others as single DR (cf. their talk page). I spotted some more photographs of artworks in their uploads, notably uploaded around the 4th and 5th of August, 2025. Examples ('Ill put them into the DR process now): File:Kelly blue.jpg (-> en:Ellsworth Kelly) and File:Eggleston yellow.jpg (artist still alive). This situation merits a review going more in-depth IMHO, with checks about US copyrights registrations. I hope for some helpers here who may be more proficient in the matters than I am. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

ROI-12 longduzboub

ROI-12 longduzboub (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

He can be blocked just if you know what means this user name in french... On frwiki, he has been blocked as "account created to vandalize". The pic can be deleted too : it was created (it's probably himself) to vandalize the article Cars (film) on frwiki but he was blocked by a filter. Supertoff (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for inappropriate username. File deleted. Yann (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Conduct by The Squirrel Conspiracy and other admins

This administrator's most recent conduct in relation to the powers of file deletion, I find incredibly shocking. I will repeat here what I have stated in my unDR request, that this is a wholly inappropriate abuse of power that denies any due process that is supposed to take place here on Commons when a file is suspected of being copyrighted. The files either should have been tagged as suspected violations and which should sit for a decent amount of time, or been nominated for deletion and which should have remained open for even longer. Both options are supposed to provide a measure of time in which other users can become aware and participate. Three hours is NOT an acceptable amount of time for an admin to play judge, jury, and executioner with zero input aside from their own.

I am aware of at least one other file, unrelated to those in the unDR I opened, that seemingly disappeared out of absolutely thin air. I don't know whether The Squirrel Conspiracy has been involved in these disappearances, or if other admins are doing it as well, but any admins that are deleting files by themselves without any sort of process or input whatsoever and in such short amount of time should be officially discouraged. This is not ok. There is nothing important enough that a suspected copyright violation needs to be deleted with such expediency. It is not a fire. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion says The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages... F1 (clear copyright violation) is one of those cases, and these deletions were perfectly valid.

It is incredibly common for admins to tag a file as copyvio and then immediately delete. The purpose of that is so that the user gets a talk page notice about the file, rather than having it simply disappear.

It's less common to open a DR and then speedily delete files, but it does happen, particularly when you discover something after the nomination. For example, I've opened a DR for low-quality files, then speedy deleted them shortly afterwards when I discovered they were copyvios. In those cases, the need for a DR becomes moot if the files are eligible for speedy deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I responded to the files in question at the UDR. As to tagging then immediately deleting, as Pi said, tagging them for is so that there's a talk page message - this is both a courtesy to the user so they know why their files are deleted, and a record so that if they continue uploading copyright violations, other admins can see they were warned and block them if necessary. COM:CSD doesn't require notification, however. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the files were indisputable violations meeting the criteria for (essentially, in the timeframe that these things normally take) instantaneous deletion. The coats of arms of the various countries are, in several cases, expired from copyright. The question also arises of their deriviative work.

Even if it is disagreed upon on that point, to open a DR and then close it by themselves within what was less than 3 hours is, in my opinion, not acceptable. The point of a DR is to open discussion, not escape it. I would have been asleep when that took place. I had no opportunity to even become aware of the DR, nevermind comment, nor did any other user, before the files were deleted.

The other issue is just how far this behaviour has been taken. As I stated, I know of another file that was disappeared out of thin air. It was a Saudi traffic sign of a similar design to File:Fig. 84 - Semaforo a 150 m - 1959.svg. The only real difference worth noting was a red border instead of black, and a different typeface. Pi.1415926535 states that admins have the authority for unilateral deletion where the offending file's copyright status is indisputable, well that most certainly was not the case with this file which absolutely 100% qualified as PD-shape and PD-ineligible. Whether it was The Squirrel Conspiracy or another admin that deleted that file, the requirement for indisputability is not being strictly followed. There is far too cavalier an attitude being used here of "I'm an admin, I know what what I know, and I'm right", even when that isn't the case, which says to me that we need to take a step back. Admins are not infallible, and they don't know everything. It doesn't mean they're malicious, but it does mean they are using a lower standard than what I would define as "indisputable". How many other files are there that have been disappeared when they should not have been? I don't know how to answer that. But whichever admin was involved in the example file I am referring to is far more fast and loose than they should be. If there is to be a very high standard, it is not being held to that level. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Presumably no one can usefully comment on the latter case, since there is no way to find the file in question; do you know who the uploader was? With that, there might be a chance of finding it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Admins are entrusted specifically because copyright issues on Commons often require judgment calls that cannot always wait on a lengthy discussion process. COM:CSD#F1 is intentionally written to give administrators the discretion to act when a file is believed to be a copyright violation, even if it is not universally obvious to every user. That authority exists precisely because Commons must err on the side of respecting copyright law, not on the side of keeping borderline or dubious files available.

Deletion in such cases does not mean the file is gone forever, Commons has a very low bar for restoration if there is reasonable doubt, via COM:UDR or deletion review. But the expectation is, and must be, that admins can act unilaterally where they see potential copyright infringement. If we instead required every uncertain case to sit for months of discussion, Commons would risk becoming a repository of material that may be infringing; this would expose both the project and the Foundation to legal consequences.

So while it can be frustrating when deletions happen quickly, that speed is a feature of the system, not a flaw. If someone disagrees with a particular judgment, the right venue is undeletion requests, not restricting the discretion admins are supposed to have in enforcing copyright compliance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

ساطي المساد

• ساطي المساد (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Another sock of دامر العمري. Evidence from User:SteinsplitterBot/Previously deleted files:

Jonteemil (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)